Going Nuclear: Cyberstalking design advocates and their families – re: “Say hi to XXXXXXXXXX and the kids for me, you demented child abuser”

This attempt as headlined to implicitly “out” and threaten my wife and our children – not to mention (per the outrageous rhetoric of Mr Dawkins and fellow New Atheists) to try to falsely smear me as a child abuser for trying to raise my children in a Christian home – moves matters at and around UD beyond the context of debate to something far more poisonously menacing and destructive.

So, let's do a little equation:

Threatening, obsessive hostile anti-Christian commentary x repeated unhealthy references to sexual matters in same x Mafioso thug style “outing” attempt on wife and children = cyberstalking

Cyberstalking, FYI, Mr “The Whole Truth,” and co, is a crime; freedom of speech does not entail freedom to menace, threaten or harm. And, in this context, anti-Christian bigotry, repeated unwholesome sexual references and slander as headlined are aggravating factors.

By right of fair comment, I also note that the resort to menacing me by an “outing”-attempt, via otherwise irrelevant reference to my wife and our children as above is also an illustration of the thuggish consequences of the Alinskyite poisonously polarised atmosphere being cultivated by uncivil Darwinist and Neo-Atheist objectors to Design Theory and wider design thought, such as by P Z Myers and co. As, I warned against in a recent post here at UD.

Let us now cut to the chase:

Cyberstalking and Internet harassment (including when such pass through the Internet and so across international borders) are considered criminal offenses in the UK and the USA, as well as other possibly relevant jurisdictions. Because of the obsessive, hostile, personal, and threatening nature of the correspondence I have received, including repeated, patently unwholesome sexual references and the “outing” attempt against my family, I will be contacting an attorney from my local public prosecutor’s office on this matter and also the police, which will set record of prior complaint if matters go worse than this; and, given my domicile in a UK Overseas Territory, may have the effect of further activating UK and international action. Further to this I must note the vulgar language, obsessive behaviour and repeated unwholesome sexual references in the context of an attempt to name my wife and allude to my children in a patently threatening manner; in a situation which they have no material relevance to or involvement in. It is thus specifically credible that the behaviour fits the profile of an Internet predator, and so this will be my one and only warning to the anonymous Cyberstalker falsely known as “The Whole Truth” and ilk, to stop the harassment IMMEDIATELY.

For more detailed record – this is no invitation to foolish talking point debates and disputes, as innocent children are now held hostage by patently implied threat in an unwholesome, poisonously hostile context; it is a watershed moment where the civil and the uncivil will now reveal themselves and their heart-motives by their actions – let us next notice the underlying deep context. Namely, Mr Alinsky's uncivil, ruthless and polarising counsel from his infamous list of Rules for Radicals, which has spread far and wide in our time, wreaking havoc as it goes:

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (cf. pp. 127 – 134.)

(And, in the context of the threats implicit in the above, the well-known Mr Dawkins and his fellow “New Atheists” are also directly implied as contributing to a hostile atmosphere of anti-Christian bigotry. This is particularly relevant, as the “child abuse” in question is plainly the inference that as a Christian I would have instructed my children in the teachings of the Bible and the Christian faith. Ironically, but ever so tellingly, one who falsely accuses me of “child abuse” is now stalking my children. Let us not forget as well, that in the recent Johns Foster-Parenting case in the UK [cf. video by Christian Concern of the UK], the UK's Office for Equality and Human Rights submitted to the High Court, a claim that included the notion that Biblical Christianity was an “infection” that children should be protected from. Not only were they not rebuked by the Court for this offensive abuse of taxpayers' money but – in an extremely troubling ruling that is a revelation of the intent of radical homosexualists to stigmatise or even onward criminalise conscience-based objection to their behaviour – the Court went on to rule that such Christians are unfit to be foster parents. So, onlookers, consider: who are fit parents? Those who seek to raise them up in a God-fearing, civil, well-mannered fashion, or those who wish to hold them hostage through cyberstalking and outing tactics?)

The headlined snippet is also the direct answer to those who imagine that the “outing” tactics now being routinely used by Darwinist advocates in an attempt to counter reasoned criticism and to intimidate critics are harmless or within norms of civilised, free-speech behaviour. Plainly, since they cannot cause me to be “expelled” by “outing” me, and since I am willing to put up with spam waves, there is now an attempt to “out” and implicitly threaten my family in a context of several spam posts to a personal blog.

The particular person who has attempted to threaten my wife and children – yes, we have seen all the old Mafia movies where the enforcer expresses menacing, saccharine-toned false solicitude for the family of a victim of intimidation – may be obsessed and even unhinged; but Darwinist objectors to Design Theory must now recognise that when they routinely follow Alinsky's evil counsel to stoke the flames of contempt, abuse, personal attack dehumanisation and demonisation, they are implicitly giving the cultural permission that the unhinged extremists “need” to legitimise their threats and deeds in their warped minds.

And, no, my pointing out the vicious nature of this personal attack is a corrective, so don't even THINK to now try to twist this into a blame the victim, he- hit- back- first turnabout false accusation.

This has gone too far for such clever rhetorical stunts to now be taken as anything less than willfully complicit, enabling behaviour.

Darwinist objectors to design thought, your side has crossed the nuclear threshold here, to outright criminality, and your side has now underscored the nihilistic amoral bankruptcy of what all too many on your side have been doing and the implications of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic factionalism, as Plato warned against in The Laws, Bk X, 2,350 years ago.

It is further worth noting that the above clip comes from a comment submitted to one of my personal blogs in reply to a recent comment here at UD (cf. Point 12) where I summarised my moderate, Rom 2:6 – 8 and 14 – 16 based “God judges by the light one has or should have” inclusivist theology (in response to an issue raised by/about IslamISTS). That is, the underlying motivation is anti-Christian bigotry.

I cite counsel on the relevant UK law:

Under Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person and under Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent offensive or threatening. In both cases the offence is punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5000 . . . .

In most cases involving malicious communications or cyberstalking however there will be more than one offensive or threatening letter or telephone call and therefore the police will often choose to charge the offender with an offence contrary to either Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 also punishable with up to six months imprisonment. Part of the reason for using this charge is that when someone is convicted of an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 the court can make a Restraining Order preventing them from contacting their victim again. Breach of a Restraining Order is punishable with up to Five years imprisonment . . . . If the e-mails, cyberstalking etc. causes the victim to fear that violence will be used against them then the police can choose to charge the offender with an offence contrary to Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which is punishable with up to five years imprisonment and also allows the court to make a Restraining Order.

If the e-mails, cyberstalking etc. is racialist in nature or motivated by religious hostility then charges could be brought of Racially or Religiously Aggravated Harassment contrary to sections 32(1)(a) or 32(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 . If convicted offenders could face up to 7 years imprisonment.

Given the ostensibly anonymous nature of the commenter hiding under the lying Internet moniker “The Whole Truth,” the only reasonable means of fulfilling a requirement of certain jurisdictions is this public notice. 

Let me be specific:

a:You, sir are to cease and desist in your attempted “outing” behaviour, and your attempts to implicitly threaten myself and my family including minor children (including the implications of repeated unwholesome sexual references you have made). 

b: In particular, given the otherwise irrelevant attempt to identify my wife and refer to our children, you are to forthwith cease from harassing, threatening, vulgar, suggestive, abusive, indecent and/or obscene, religiously hostile and similar communications in any form or forum to myself or to third parties or in public, and 

c: you are therefore also to immediately remove from your blog or other relevant contexts any and all references you have made that contribute to such harassment, intimidation, indecency, bigotry or threats.

 

d: This notice of and demand for removal also holds for any third parties who set about propagating your misconduct across the Internet, or who harbour your misbehaviour under mistaken notions of freedom of expression, whether they are domiciled in the US, the UK or anywhere else in the world. 

For, freedom to express views and propagate ideas does not include “freedom” to threaten, intimidate or harm people, especially minors and women. Nor, “freedom” to abuse local and global telecommunication services in so doing.

(I have already had to caution my children to beware of physical stalking, as I do not know whether you have or may acquire confederates, associates or like-minded fellow-travellers in my immediate vicinity. In case you do not understand my point, this constitutes notice that you, though your unhinged, obsessive and threatening behaviour, have given me credible reason to fear for the safety of my wife and our children. Thus, having hereby given you a public notice to cease and desist, I will shortly notify my local police and Public Prosecutor's Office; which per provisions of local law as a UK Overseas Territory may then activate the relevant UK statutes.)

And, in light of the provisions of relevant jurisdictions, do not imagine that you will be protected by Google's cleverly worded tort-evasion policies for Blogger Blogs or Wordpress' similar policies. END

___________

F/N: A predictable rebuttal attempt talking point will be to try to pretend that I am exaggerating the threat in the above and am trying to stifle "free speech." So, I ask you onlookers, to reflect on what relevance my wife, her name [as incorrectly reported] or our children have to do with any discussion whatsoever over intelligent design, or the more specific matter that I happen to hold a moderate inclusivist theology, i.e. that God judges us by the light we have or should have? The correct answer is: NIL, save that they can be used as implicit hostages to threaten or harass, or even intimidate. What I have had to reply to above is therefore patently shameful -- nay, shameless and inexcusable -- cyberstalking misconduct.